Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30076

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mdmost said:

Mitch, use the Nuclear Option to get the votes to make the US pay for this wall that I said Mexico would pay for. 

And of course that pussy turtle will do just that. 

It might be prudent to ask the president to define what he means by nuclear option. 

He can be alarmingly literal in his dotage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Why would Dotard choose someone who shares the same views as the person he just ran off?  In the words of the late great Robin Williams in regards to unarmed police in an unarmed country, "Stop or I'll say stop again." Mitch, you're words are toothless without action.  

Turtles don't have teeth

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45767

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

And btw for all the pearl clutching about not consulting his advisors, it sounds like Mattis quit after trying to convince him, unsuccessfully. His Sec of Defense advised him, he disagreed and made the decision. That should be good enough for every poster here.

lulz.  Asked and answered!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21026

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Sending American troops to Middle Eastern countries without Congressional authorization nor a clear exit strategy, something that #bothsides can agree on. 

do you think that military presence in Syria is the issue that most people here are fundamentally taking issue with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23508

Posted
Posted
Just now, Celery Man said:

do you think that military presence in Syria is the issue that most people here are fundamentally taking issue with?

You are fretting about the departure of a man who's last straw for resignation from the current administration was 1) pulling troops from Syria; 2) pulling troops from Afghanistan; 3) getting his feelings hurt that his recommendation for a military position was passed over.  Those are the fundamental issues that he was not aligned on and led to his departure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90054

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

So if there was some rebel militia operating in Mexico or something with deep ties to a terrorist group regularly killing American civilians, you think we would just sit back and take it?  We wouldn't go after them?  

The Turks see all Kurds as terrorists and a problem to be eliminated.  The idea of the Kurds carving out a piece of Syria/Iraq for their own nation-state terrifies them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30076

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

It's funny how whenever Syrian Kurds and Turkey are brought up no one ever mentions the fact that the YPG operating in Syria and the PKK, a terrorist organization that regularly murders civilians in Turkey, are clearly and obviously linked.  

They are a people that once had a land. Mapmakers failed to recognize this and abstracted them out of independence and made them trespassers. What they do is resistance and survival.

Their politics are complicated and should not be reduced to the simplism that terrorists are bad. Kurds do terroristic things. Kurds are bad. This is the trap of declaring a war on "terrorism." Terrorism is a subjective term that describes a violent means rather than the causes that employ it.

We bomb civilians. Should we declare war on ourselves because that is arguably terrorism? Isn't Shock and Awe just a euphemism for terror-inducing?

The Kurds ally themselves in different ways in different regions to exist. It's not simple. Don't reduce it to good guys and bad guys. They've been a splendid ally to us against ISIS. Any withdrawal we contemplate should consider their fate. I won't write that we must do so, because that word has no meaning in the cheap theater of American Foreign policy. It's all for the dimwitted audience at home.

A fighter who died fighting ISIS:

_91166594_c01fd1eb-70a6-4113-a286-994b95

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30076

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

So if there was some rebel militia operating in Mexico or something with deep ties to a terrorist group regularly killing American civilians, you think we would just sit back and take it?  We wouldn't go after them?  

Negged for likely willful obfuscation.

Do you think the Turks were just happily eating dinner and a bunch of unprovoked Kurds showed up and shot the place up? Do you actually think history starts at the point you describe?

In your example, should the United States destroy or conquer all of Mexico? Would any sane president and Congress endorse that policy?

Your's is an appeal to simple-mindedness which is excusable only when the appeal originates from the simple minded. I don't think that's the case here. Your intentionally muddying the waters.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack

Jack 51

Posted
Posted

We are only involved in Syria because Qatar and Syria couldn't negotiate a pipeline that would pass through Syria and into Turkey.  Instead of negotiating, the middle east does what the middle east does.  Kill eachother and use their money to lobby our elected officials enough till we get involved. 

If you think Trump is incompetent, then I don't see how you could argue you'd want him fighting this war and risking the lives of our troops over something like this.   If Syria hadn't gone into full scale civil war, France probably wouldn't be in flames right now.  Enough damage has been caused and we don't have the capability to fix it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
USMCHorn

USMCHorn 1369

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Jack said:

When was the last time we didn't have a threat of a shutdown?  GWBush's first term?

What the fuck are you really saying? The measure was good until dumbfuck changed his mind on Wednesday night.

Edited by USMCHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Goredho

Goredho 17510

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I asked Brisket and didn't get an answer, but what do you actually mean by "get better" with regard to Syria? What, specifically, do you want to see us accomplish with our military in Syria?

 The nation has a democratically-elected president who has requested Russia's help.

What does it mean for us to do the "right thing" in Syria?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the goal of withdrawing from Syria, @bad_teamate, and you make some very good points in this thread.  But, the "how" can make the "what" a poor course of action.  I am sure you are familiar with terms like unintended consequences, out of the frying pan and into the fire and butterfly effect.  Some things actually do need to be thought through before they are simply executed on. 

What I would have liked to have seen from a President wanting to withdraw from Syria is for them to task their Secretary of Defense with developing a plan within 21 days that accomplishes these three primary objectives:

  • We are able to withdraw all US forces from Syria
  • The Kurds and any other allies that we had pledged to support in the conflict are left in a strong enough position to survive in our absence
  • True adversaries of the US, like ISIS, are not left in a position to regain strength after we leave

The President should receive the plan, ask questions and possibly have the Secretary of Defense and his staff iterate on it a bit.  When the President is satisfied that those three objectives were going to be met, give approval to execute.  During that time, work on the political and diplomatic front.  Inform congress and our allies in the coalition as to what we were doing, why and how.  At that point, hold a press conference and inform the American people about our shift in Syrian strategy, giving all of us an understanding of what was happening, why and leaving us with a sense that this was a considered strategy worthy of our support.

If we had a President who worked toward this perfectly fine goal in a sane manner as above, we would not be faced with:

* Current and future allies, the ones we would need after another 9/11 event, wondering if an alliance with us means anything
* Dealing with the resignation of our Secretary of Defense in a public display of no-confidence in the President for the first time in our history
* Our military personnel being asked to put their lives on the line at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief who just had his fitness for command resoundingly called into question by his 2nd in command
* Our military having to craft the plan to leave Syria under the duress of this leadership fiasco and with the resulting turnover at the top of their organization
* Wondering if we are being led by a madman or a puppet of the Russian government

Again, the goal is fine, but I do not believe getting out of Syria yesterday is worth the above.  Worse yet, I think we could get out of Syria without having to suffer the above consequences if we had a President that was capable of diplomacy, nuanced leadership and thought beyond the first layer of a problem.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Firemans4Horn

Firemans4Horn 18304

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 minutes ago, Goredho said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the goal of withdrawing from Syria, @bad_teamate, and you make some very good points in this thread.  But, the "how" can make the "what" a poor course of action.  I am sure you are familiar with terms like unintended consequences, out of the frying pan and into the fire and butterfly effect.  Some things actually do need to be thought through before they are simply executed on. 

What I would have liked to have seen from a President wanting to withdraw from Syria is for them to task their Secretary of Defense with developing a plan within 21 days that accomplishes these three primary objectives:

  • We are able to withdraw all US forces from Syria
  • The Kurds and any other allies that we had pledged to support in the conflict are left in a strong enough position to survive in our absence
  • True adversaries of the US, like ISIS, are not left in a position to regain strength after we leave

The President should receive the plan, ask questions and possibly have the Secretary of Defense and his staff iterate on it a bit.  When the President is satisfied that those three objectives were going to be met, give approval to execute.  During that time, work on the political and diplomatic front.  Inform congress and our allies in the coalition as to what we were doing, why and how.  At that point, hold a press conference and inform the American people about our shift in Syrian strategy, giving all of us an understanding of what was happening, why and leaving us with a sense that this was a considered strategy worthy of our support.

If we had a President who worked toward this perfectly fine goal in a sane manner as above, we would not be faced with:

* Current and future allies, the ones we would need after another 9/11 event, wondering if an alliance with us means anything
* Dealing with the resignation of our Secretary of Defense in a public display of no-confidence in the President for the first time in our history
* Our military personnel being asked to put their lives on the line at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief who just had his fitness for command resoundingly called into question by his 2nd in command
* Our military having to craft the plan to leave Syria under the duress of this leadership fiasco and with the resulting turnover at the top of their organization
* Wondering if we are being led by a madman or a puppet of the Russian government

Again, the goal is fine, but I do not believe getting out of Syria yesterday is worth the above.  Worse yet, I think we could get out of Syria without having to suffer the above consequences if we had a President that was capable of diplomacy, nuanced leadership and thought beyond the first layer of a problem.

My brother just got out of the military 2 months ago after 9 years. I texted him yesterday about Mattis and this was his reply:

 

”When the presidents of Russia and Turkey support your decision and your Secretary of Defense doesn’t, that should mean something.”

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

This is Trump afraid he's losing the Senate and a reminder that they need him just like Trump needs their cover.  

I think it is Corker trying to weigh between doing his buddies that are already gone a solid and voting no on an already doomed bill so they don't have to come back, versus explaining that to his electorate who will just see the 'no.'  He's already not running, so he should just vote no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack

Jack 51

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, USMCHorn said:

What the fuck are you really saying? The measure was good until dumbfuck changed his mind on Wednesday night.

That the house and senate had all year to come up with a budget deal and waiting until the very last second to do it again.  Same shit they did with Bush and Obama.  If they did their job, the presidency wouldn't be as important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 5015

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

x1000

Pathological is a great word for it. 

continued, alternate reality of your choice. plenty of criticism to go around then, and obv now. 

also, single actions and then reverbing them in defense over and over is just dumb and ruining our discourse. but we know that don't we?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...